Gears of War 3 to feature Casual Mode in multiplayer

Gears of War 3 will feature a new Casual Mode in multiplayer matches for new players.

Epic Games has revealed that Gears of War 3 will feature a new Casual Mode for some multiplayer matches, intended to make the game more accessible to those who've never played Gears of War before.

Players who use Casual Mode will benefit from an increased aim assistance, according to Gears of War designer Cliff Bleszinski, who unveiled the mode in a discussion at Comic Con.

Casual Mode will remain locked off to experienced players, however - you'll only be able to enable it if you don't have any Gears of War 2 or Gears of War 1 achievements linked to your profile. Those who've played the Gears of War 3 Beta are also unable to access Casual Mode.

Epic will have new Casual Mode multiplayer servers set up too, free of more able players.

Gears of War 3 will also have a Casual Mode in the single player campaign, where players will benefit also from weaker enemies and more health.

Gears of War 3 is due for release on 20th September, 2011 on Xbox 360. Check the Gears of War 3 trailer below, then let us know your thoughts in the forums.

I think it's an excellent idea, especially the way that they're locking it off to people who've already played GoW. What exactly is the problem with making hardcore games more accessible to newbies? Video games are about having fun, not proving that you're a better player than everyone else.

It kinda reminds me of the two-button mode EA added to Fifa11- none of my friends use it, but it meant my brother and sister were able to have a game with me without pressing pause every 10 seconds to explain every button combination for the dozenth time.

Edit: People need to stop whinging like this is the only option. Where in the article does it say casual mode replaces the usual options? Clue: it doesn't

it's a great idea, with one problem.. Locking it off to previous owners of GOW 1 and/or 2.. The previous owner might of been casual players, they might of tried online and failed terribily. Or they might be doing the online thing for the first time. It's a shame this mode isn't available to them to tempt them in...

Originally Posted by Tsungit's a great idea, with one problem.. Locking it off to previous owners of GOW 1 and/or 2.. The previous owner might of been casual players, they might of tried online and failed terribily. Or they might be doing the online thing for the first time. It's a shame this mode isn't available to them to tempt them in...

Agreed. If a lock out exists, it should only stop people who have multiplayer achievements in GOW 1 & 2, or beating the campaign on hard mode. Just trying the game shouldn't lock you out of trying to get into GOW 3.

This is a good idea that is obviously aimed that gamers that are fairly new to online gaming in general to help them get a feel for it and their first foot on the ladder. I would have appreciated a system like this when I first played a game online (I think it was CoD1) as it was a rough, un enjoyable learning curve for me that I only stuck through because a good friend was insistent I would grow to love online gaming.

He was right, but I did very nearly think 'to hell with this'.

Having it automatically lock out players that have any previous gears game achievements is a good move.

No idea why people are pissy about that, given that Gears is only hard on the last difficulty more people will play on that, and then people who will never get it complain about it, let the casuals have their auto aim as long as it remains off on harder difficulties and multiplayer.

Yup, snobbery all the way. Console gaming is utter fail. Do you think this latest design addition has something to do with the analog sticks? The fact you're supposed to be doing "precise aiming" with them is beyond a joke. I'd have better accuracy rolling my head over my mouse.

Something that confuses me a bit, how does this make things particularly easier in a multiplayer environment? So you've got auto-aim, easier right? Well, now all of your opponents have auto aim. In a multiplayer setting it's not really an "easier" difficult setting such as with singleplayer, it's simply a more accessible control scheme for new players which seems reasonable enough, particularly given the requirements to even play this mode.

On the flip side, singleplayer difficulty settings will always be a touchy subject. Not everyone is good at video games, just like not everyone is good at sports, or driving, etc. That doesn't mean they don't have fun playing easier games and doesn't mean that developers should ignore them, there's a need for casual games. What developers don't seem to understand, however, is that sequels aren't the place to implement changes to help casual players. It hurts the fans for the sake of increasing the number of players, i.e. sales.

I don't know which. How about making GOW on rails with auto fire? Then you just sit and watch but you have to hold the fire button down or else you're deaded.

You seem to not realise the mode is meant to aid new players who would like to try multiplayer but don't want to get absolutely destroyed. Seems pretty reasonable to me. keep the new players playing together until they feel confident to play in the normal modes. It saves frustration with both newbies and regulars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FizzbanBecause making games easy detracts from the experience?

Depends on the individual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by XXAOSICXX

As for elitism....sure, I'll take that on the chin..what's the point of being superior if you can't brag about it :p

Because it shows how massive of an asshole you are. what ever happened to being humble?

so much rage at an option designed for a minority of players, and which there is no requirement to use.

as for aim assist, no big deal, either don't play games that use it, or just avoid consoles, or a third option, if you're an sad ******* with nothing better to do, go onto forums and cry about it.

and i was thinking, how many pc gamers use dedicated gaming keyboards, mice, headsets, sound card etc to gain an advantage when playing pc games?
not to mention some people seem to be under the impression that pc games don't make things easier for the player, which is bollocks, pc FPS games may not have wide speed aim assist like consoles, but they certainty have other forms of players assists.

Originally Posted by FizzbanDo console games allow you to -completely- turn off auto-aim? I was under the impression there always had to be some 'help' as a pad is pathetic when compared to the accuracy of a mouse.

Was that elitist enough? It must have been, because it was true.

Certain console games allow you to turn it off completely, so yea. Also that wasn't elitist, that was true, I agree the mouse + keyboard are better (for the most part), however certain games you obviously cannot play on a PC, and if you're a gamer and you chose to game PC only, it really narrows down your library. (I'm not saying there isn't amazing PC titles, because there is, but console exclusive titles do exist and most of them are quite good)

Also if you were basing games on being "casual" based on difficulty, that would put Demon Soul's (PS3 exclusive) far above almost anything on PC :/ Broken logic is broken.

Originally Posted by alf-so much rage at an option designed for a minority of players, and which there is no requirement to use.

as for aim assist, no big deal, either don't play games that use it, or just avoid consoles, or a third option, if you're an sad ******* with nothing better to do, go onto forums and cry about it.

and i was thinking, how many pc gamers use dedicated gaming keyboards, mice, headsets, sound card etc to gain an advantage when playing pc games?
not to mention some people seem to be under the impression that pc games don't make things easier for the player, which is bollocks, pc FPS games may not have wide speed aim assist like consoles, but they certainty have other forms of players assists.

Yes there are PC games that try to assist you in as much as they can. Those games are usually regarded as crap. I remember a certain driving game called FUEL where they "innovated" it so much it was just a pile of crap. It had so many driving aids.

PC gamers want good hardware but that has nothing to do with auto aiming. PC gamers want the aiming to be down to their skills not some auto-assist crap. Having an expensive gaming keyboard, surround audio, 3d monitor, laser mouse doesn't make you a cheat like auto aim does. Such hardware in the hands of a console player would be wasted because they'd be crap if they're used to auto aim and crappy joypads. So a PC gamer might have expensive gaming hardware/peripherals but underneath all that should be the skill required to aim quickly and precisely using a mouse.

plenty of FPS games, including the current best sellers (BF2, COD) have regenerative health, you get shot a few times? no bug deal you hide for a few seconds and you magically have full health again, even games taht have health bars give you superhuman resistance to death, this is a player assist.

plenty of FPS games, once again including the best sellers, give you superhuman aiming ability, compare shooting a gun in real life to games and differences are gigantic, once again this is a player assist.

next time you get a head shot playing a pc game, remember you would never of got it if the game didn't make it easier for you.

Originally Posted by FizzbanDo console games allow you to -completely- turn off auto-aim? I was under the impression there always had to be some 'help' as a pad is pathetic when compared to the accuracy of a mouse.

Was that elitist enough? It must have been, because it was true.

Depends on the game and whether you are playing online or off. Also, it depends on what you mean by auto-aim. What you are refering to (I think) is the aim-assist that all players will usually have online. This is something that you usually can't 'turn off' per se - its built into the online experience for everyone. Its a necessary consequence of the sticks being inherently less precise than a mouse, but because its built into the aiming for everyone you hardly notice its there (and it serves its purpose extremely well).

Its basically like a very slight pull towards an enemy person when you are aiming down the sights, so if you was in front of me and I moved my crosshairs across the screen, it would slow the crosshairs down very slightly as they moved over your character. Its really well implemented, though, so there is still a massive skill level between good and bad players, ie just because it has this slight target assist doesnt mean everyone can shoot like a trained marksman (theres people with good aim and crap aim, just like on a pc). And also, it means that some players can develop aiming that is comparable to pc users, because of how well devs have made up for the analogues sticks imprecisions.

However, this is completely different from the auto-aim feature found in the singleplayer of some FPS games, because what that does is lock on to the nearest enemy target as soon as you aim down the sights (at least in cod), which is annoying as crap and why most turn it off. This is completely different from the inbuilt type of aim-assist found in the multiplayer aspect of the game (Im referring mainly to Cod here, but it generalises for most FPS games found on consoles).

[QUOTE=Sloth]Something that confuses me a bit, how does this make things particularly easier in a multiplayer environment? So you've got auto-aim, easier right? Well, now all of your opponents have auto aim. In a multiplayer setting it's not really an "easier" difficult setting such as with singleplayer, it's simply a more accessible control scheme for new players which seems reasonable enough, particularly given the requirements to even play this mode.
[QUOTE]

Yeah, this confuses me to. So the aim assist helps them get into the game. But everyone they're playing is using it too. So it's pwn and get pwned as usual based on reflexes isn't it? Good beats ok then ok beats mediocre and so on. Not exactly easy mode.

And then what? After a while they think they're decently good at the game and decide to move to a non-casual server with no aim assist? And get their tails kicked to the moon and back? Just hope that there is an option of scaling for the assist. Or that it scales itself down as the player "levels up" so to speak. If not this feature is not really meant to get more players. It's just meant to sell more copies...

Originally Posted by XXAOSICXXI'll be humble the day the console gamers of the world admit they're on an inferior platform with an inferior control system playing inferior games :)

Deal?

Not everybody wants to spend a grand on a gaming rig and three years down the line have to be upgraded or replaced, where as an xbox for a third of the price will still be fine until it is replaced by the newer gen.

The day console games say there games are inferior will be a sad as, as 90% of the games on console are the same on PC

Infact in alot of way the pc is inferior to consoles. It costs three times the price if not more,Crashing is more common, less accessible, Becoming more and more reliant on steam, pretty much tied down to windows even though we have lots of os. I wouldn't mind if we were getting a huge return but were not. Games don't look three times better on pc or even twice as good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCJunkie+1
That's what you get for playing with a backwards-engineered controller, fools! The thing has to play for YOU, so fail, you might as well quit and just watch TV.

Well, you try pop on to bfbc2 or cod4 on xbox and see how well you fair out if they do all aiming for you.
I know for a fact that I am crap on xbox and ps3, or maybe its just me missing out on the auto aim?

since when did they have auto aim on consoles? i'm pretty sure they don't use auto aim when playing multiplayer. as for gears of war iv never played it so maybe its a good idea for something like that to help new players :) .

plenty of FPS games, including the current best sellers (BF2, COD) have regenerative health, you get shot a few times? no bug deal you hide for a few seconds and you magically have full health again

BF2 doesn't have regenerative health. You either need to be healed by a medic, find a med pack dropped by a medic or crouch like a baby behind a supply drop praying you don't get picked off by a sniper. Sorry.

Not everybody wants to spend a grand on a gaming rig and three years down the line have to be upgraded or replaced, where as an xbox for a third of the price will still be fine until it is replaced by the newer gen.

The day console games say there games are inferior will be a sad as, as 90% of the games on console are the same on PC

Infact in alot of way the pc is inferior to consoles. It costs three times the price if not more,Crashing is more common, less accessible, Becoming more and more reliant on steam, pretty much tied down to windows even though we have lots of os. I wouldn't mind if we were getting a huge return but were not. Games don't look three times better on pc or even twice as good.

Oh dear, oh dear oh dear.

*grabs popcorn & chair, sit's back and waits for the fireworks to commence*

on the subject of the game.
The only way to get good at a game is by practice.
Enhancing auto aim is just creating an artificially easy environment for new players that will still leave new players thinking OMG! WTF! this is difficult! when they get booted in to proper matches, with no real gain for anyone.
The only way to ease players in is staged servers, easy, medium, difficult, but as we all know, newbie servers get abused.

Originally Posted by murrayntNot everybody wants to spend a grand on a gaming rig and three years down the line have to be upgraded or replaced, where as an xbox for a third of the price will still be fine until it is replaced by the newer gen.

The day console games say there games are inferior will be a sad as, as 90% of the games on console are the same on PC

Infact in alot of way the pc is inferior to consoles. It costs three times the price if not more,Crashing is more common, less accessible, Becoming more and more reliant on steam, pretty much tied down to windows even though we have lots of os. I wouldn't mind if we were getting a huge return but were not. Games don't look three times better on pc or even twice as good.

Well, you try pop on to bfbc2 or cod4 on xbox and see how well you fair out if they do all aiming for you.
I know for a fact that I am crap on xbox and ps3, or maybe its just me missing out on the auto aim?

+1 Agree with everything you say. The guys on a tirade against consoles are completely misinformed and over-the-top. It has some benefits that pc's dont have (ie not reliant on driver support, costs are much less, and so on) even if you have better resolutions.

Well a cure the newbie server issues where experience players go easy picking is to limit the scope of the server. Several options could be disabled on an easy server that would make it unattractive to the experience players. For instance..

If a persistant level system exists, limit it's scope (Eg. you can only gain xp up to level 5) with reduced xp on the newbie servers. No achievements. Limit the weapon choice, encourage new players to move on by tempting them with the newer weapons without actually giving them. Limit the score range. Only allow a +/- 3 score range where you can only kill people in your score range (or above).

I'm not sure I'll get GOW3.. I loved GOW1, but found GOW2 to be never ending tunnels. Oh another tunnel, what fun, the developers really went balls out on the graphics / settings of this one.

Originally Posted by RedDethXCertain console games allow you to turn it off completely, so yea. Also that wasn't elitist, that was true, I agree the mouse + keyboard are better (for the most part), however certain games you obviously cannot play on a PC, and if you're a gamer and you chose to game PC only, it really narrows down your library. (I'm not saying there isn't amazing PC titles, because there is, but console exclusive titles do exist and most of them are quite good)

Also if you were basing games on being "casual" based on difficulty, that would put Demon Soul's (PS3 exclusive) far above almost anything on PC :/ Broken logic is broken.

I don't only game on a PC out of principle or anything. I simply cannot afford the consoles as well as owning and upgrading a PC. Or rather I should say that the PC and other things I buy are prioritized over getting a console. There are some sweet games on the consoles that I'd like to own, but I can live without for now. I don't think I mentioned casual, but isn't that just re-branding easy-mode so people don't feel so inadequate?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3lusiveDepends on the game and whether you are playing online or off. Also, it depends on what you mean by auto-aim. What you are refering to (I think) is the aim-assist that all players will usually have online. This is something that you usually can't 'turn off' per se - its built into the online experience for everyone. Its a necessary consequence of the sticks being inherently less precise than a mouse, but because its built into the aiming for everyone you hardly notice its there (and it serves its purpose extremely well).

Its basically like a very slight pull towards an enemy person when you are aiming down the sights, so if you was in front of me and I moved my crosshairs across the screen, it would slow the crosshairs down very slightly as they moved over your character. Its really well implemented, though, so there is still a massive skill level between good and bad players, ie just because it has this slight target assist doesnt mean everyone can shoot like a trained marksman (theres people with good aim and crap aim, just like on a pc). And also, it means that some players can develop aiming that is comparable to pc users, because of how well devs have made up for the analogues sticks imprecisions.

However, this is completely different from the auto-aim feature found in the singleplayer of some FPS games, because what that does is lock on to the nearest enemy target as soon as you aim down the sights (at least in cod), which is annoying as crap and why most turn it off. This is completely different from the inbuilt type of aim-assist found in the multiplayer aspect of the game (Im referring mainly to Cod here, but it generalises for most FPS games found on consoles).

Ah, I'm used to auto-aim in singleplayer on consoles. If I play a game online I do so from a PC, so I don't ever use it in a multiplayer environment. I can see the need for some assist with pads I suppose. I just don't like it.

Originally Posted by murrayntNot everybody wants to spend a grand on a gaming rig and three years down the line have to be upgraded or replaced, where as an xbox for a third of the price will still be fine until it is replaced by the newer gen.

The day console games say there games are inferior will be a sad as, as 90% of the games on console are the same on PC

Infact in alot of way the pc is inferior to consoles. It costs three times the price if not more,Crashing is more common, less accessible, Becoming more and more reliant on steam, pretty much tied down to windows even though we have lots of os. I wouldn't mind if we were getting a huge return but were not. Games don't look three times better on pc or even twice as good.

Well, you try pop on to bfbc2 or cod4 on xbox and see how well you fair out if they do all aiming for you.
I know for a fact that I am crap on xbox and ps3, or maybe its just me missing out on the auto aim?

+1 Agree with everything you say. The guys on a tirade against consoles are completely misinformed and over-the-top. It has some benefits that pc's dont have (ie not reliant on driver support, costs are much less, and so on) even if you have better resolutions.

I agree with both of you 100%. And i'm a PC gamer first, console second.

Playing PC multiplayer games for me is a bit boring nowadays. None of my mates are prepared, or can afford, to spend £1k (minimum) on a PC to play games.
In the time they've spent a few hundred quid on an Xbox they bought in 2006, i've spent upwards of £5k on various new builds and upgrades to my PC to ensure I can play the latest releases at 1920 x 1080 with sliders turned up. So basically I have to play as a lone wolf against people I don't know and can't speak to.

I go straight back on to my Xbox with 3-4 of my really close mates and I have a great time.

The Auto-Aim thing has been blown way our of proportion. The misconception to a lot of people in this thread that "It does it for you" is just laughable.

Where does this 1k BS come from? I just built a whole new rig for about half that, and it's super powerful. And to shoot down the other guy, it NEVER crashes, it doesn't need to be accessible because I know how to use it, I don't ever need to use steam, and the OS thing was just a laughable comment.

If you are going to do the PC vs Console thing, at least try to make it accurate.

Originally Posted by rogerrabbitsWhere does this 1k BS come from? I just built a whole new rig for about half that, and it's super powerful. And to shoot down the other guy, it NEVER crashes, it doesn't need to be accessible because I know how to use it, I don't ever need to use steam, and the OS thing was just a laughable comment.

If you are going to do the PC vs Console thing, at least try to make it accurate.

Exactly. The guy who said he's spent £5K since 2006 has done so out of choice NOT necessity. My dual HD4890 cards in crossfire are still playing everything on max and are a two generations old. My best mate has a 5 year old PC that wasn't even expensive at the time and plays everything new on "medium" (which is approximately comparable to most XBox360 graphics anyway) - so, really - is it such an expensive hobby, when you consider all the other benefits of having a decent PC?

Originally Posted by GravitySmackedOh no, please let's not have the PC vs Console debate again, it's been done to death.

If only. People love to get locked into the idea that consoles are for casual gamers and PCs are for hardcore gamers. However, that's simply not the case.

Bejewelled, Peggle, Farmville, there's plenty of casual trash on PC. There are also plenty of gems on consoles, I'd really miss Metal Gear Solid 4, Demon's Souls, Gran Turismo 5 and Armored Core 4/For Answer if my PS3 was taken away, nor would I want to play any of those on KB+M. There are also plenty of cross platform games to help blur the lines, "casual" games like the upcoming MW3 will be available on PC and "hardcore" games like BF3 are available on consoles.

In the end it's not about the hardware, it's about the players.

EDIT: and just a side note, playing a "hardcore" game or owning a gaming PC doesn't immediately mean you're actually good at the game you play and owning a console doesn't mean you're bad at the games you play. In any game there will always be better and worse players.

Originally Posted by Fizzban5k!!! Spending that much is a choice, it is FAR removed from necessity. And as an argument in favour of consoles it falls over. I reckon I've spent 2k - 2.5k since 2005 on my PC/PCs.

Well yes the £5k side of it is out of choice, but you don't really back up your own side of the argument by saying "I've spent £2.5k" either. That's still a lot of money.

Since August 2005 - About 3 months before the Xbox was released - i've had to go through an Athlon 64 with a 7800GT system (Not cheap). E6600 with 8800GTX system in 2007 (Not cheap). A Q9550 and an i7 930 with a Radeon 5870 system to keep gaming at high res.

Quote:

Originally Posted by XXAOSICKXXAnd as for playing solo on PC...I think you just need more friends.

I have a lot of friends there's no problem in that respect. As I said before in my previous post, it's just that none of them really want to spend (Or can afford) a decent PC to play games at decent resolution. Especially when the Xbox provides what they want for gaming.

Are you referring to those false friends that you meet on games and never meet in person? I find that a bit weird myself.

Originally Posted by XXAOSICXXI'll be humble the day the console gamers of the world admit they're on an inferior platform with an inferior control system playing inferior games :)

Deal?

Not everybody wants to spend a grand on a gaming rig and three years down the line have to be upgraded or replaced, where as an xbox for a third of the price will still be fine until it is replaced by the newer gen.

The day console games say there games are inferior will be a sad as, as 90% of the games on console are the same on PC

Infact in alot of way the pc is inferior to consoles. It costs three times the price if not more,Crashing is more common, less accessible, Becoming more and more reliant on steam, pretty much tied down to windows even though we have lots of os. I wouldn't mind if we were getting a huge return but were not. Games don't look three times better on pc or even twice as good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCJunkie+1
That's what you get for playing with a backwards-engineered controller, fools! The thing has to play for YOU, so fail, you might as well quit and just watch TV.

Well, you try pop on to bfbc2 or cod4 on xbox and see how well you fair out if they do all aiming for you.
I know for a fact that I am crap on xbox and ps3, or maybe its just me missing out on the auto aim?

A PC doesn't need to cost 3 times as much as crapbox £3.60. Crashing is more common? I guess you must have been using windows XP then. Most games are pretty stable these days. Crysis 2 hasn't crashed once and windows 7 is much more stable than the shitty XP.

PC games aren't 3 times better? No, that's because most of the developers decided to code for the lowest system and then upscale to the PC and so PC games have suffered as a consequenec. Latest news from DICE is that Battlefield 3 is being coded primarily for the most powerful platform and scaled back to accomodate the vintage gaming systems.

Do I want extremely outdated gaming hardware? No. I want a system where I can upgrade parts one a time over the space of a few years. I sell my old parts and get money back. I got £102 for my Q6600 on ebay. £75 for my Gigabyte 260 Super OC etc. The old excuse that PC gaming is expensive is really just bollocks. Plenty of ways to minimise cost as well as recoup some of the outlay later. The big advantage is that I can change each part and decide what goes into it. I can't do that with a console. It only seems like yesterday the 360 was announced and now it's a very old system with pretty poor graphics compared to even a low end gaming PC.

I think PC gaming is often perceived as being expensive because of what it is, a hobby and gamers will often needlessly lavish money on it just because it is their hobby and they want to.
In reality you can pick up very capable machines for £300 - £400.

Originally Posted by tom_hargreavesSince August 2005 - About 3 months before the Xbox was released - i've had to go through an Athlon 64 with a 7800GT system (Not cheap). E6600 with 8800GTX system in 2007 (Not cheap). A Q9550 and an i7 930 with a Radeon 5870 system to keep gaming at high res.

But you have to compare like for like!

You are comparing the cost of consoles with a PC, but you are not comparing the finished article. Consoles don't have super high resolutions, cranked graphics, and AF and AA. If you play a console game on PC (like NFS / GTA / GoW / whatever) and you use moderate settings with no AA etc.. to match what you get on the console, then it runs smooth as silk even on old hardware.

So your argument is (unintentionally I think) biased, because you didn't 'need' your most recent upgrade. That old dual core conroe with 8800gtx will match anything a console can do. The PC vs Console debate is actually quite deep, when you consider that people work on their PC's etc.. you can't just say well consoles are cheaper so there.

p.s. and all the stuff about friends is personal to you, and doesn't have anything to do with PC gaming in general.

Originally Posted by tom_hargreavesSince August 2005 - About 3 months before the Xbox was released - i've had to go through an Athlon 64 with a 7800GT system (Not cheap). E6600 with 8800GTX system in 2007 (Not cheap). A Q9550 and an i7 930 with a Radeon 5870 system to keep gaming at high res.

But you have to compare like for like!

You are comparing the cost of consoles with a PC, but you are not comparing the finished article. Consoles don't have super high resolutions, cranked graphics, and AF and AA. If you play a console game on PC (like NFS / GTA / GoW / whatever) and you use moderate settings with no AA etc.. to match what you get on the console, then it runs smooth as silk even on old hardware.

So your argument is (unintentionally I think) biased, because you didn't 'need' your most recent upgrade. That old dual core conroe with 8800gtx will match anything a console can do. The PC vs Console debate is actually quite deep, when you consider that people work on their PC's etc.. you can't just say well consoles are cheaper so there.

p.s. and all the stuff about friends is personal to you, and doesn't have anything to do with PC gaming in general.

Originally Posted by XXAOSICXXI'll be positively lolling my socks off at anyone playing GoW3 in casual mode, regardless of how much fun they're having with it.

As long as you're enjoying yourself, I suppose. :?

God forbid different people enjoy different things, apparently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuyanxumy uber high tree of wisdom have told me to crush you using sunflower powered plants :p followed by an attack from the Trine trio. and finish off by my trusty pirate friend Guybrush Threepwood.

gosh, i've got a lot of casual games on my computer. luckly angry birds has been strickly limited to my mobile devices.

Blame Steam imo. Drop a couple bucks here and there on those addictive little games and next thing you know it's a sizable chunk of your collection! And you really can't scoff at the value of them, $5 for even just 10 hours and you've hit a pretty typical cost to play time ratio of a AAA title.

Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.